Video: Geithner busted on “war savings”

posted at 9:41 am on December 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Via Jim Hoft, a moment of brilliance from Chris Wallace entirely flummoxes the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday on Fox News Sunday.  Wallace challenges Tim Geithner on the lack of real spending cuts in the proposal he brought to Capitol Hill last week, and Geithner objects, claiming that the White House has trillions in cuts in their proposal — from ending the wars.  When Wallace reminds Geithner that no one planned to keep fighting those wars in the first place, Geithner loses his composure and starts complaining about Republican gimmicks:

WALLACE: Or they now say because you’re not willing to cut spending enough.

GEITHNER: No, but that’s not true. Again, if they want to do more on the spending side than the $600 billion we proposed on top of the trillion already enacted, in top of the savings from the wars, then they can tell us how they propose –

WALLACE: Savings in the wars that we were never going to fight?

GEITHNER: No, that’s not true. We’re — as you know, we’re winding down two wars.

WALLACE: I understand that.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: And you are thinking savings that nobody thought that you were going to spend that money any way. It’s a budget gimmick, sir.

GEITHNER: No, that’s not right. You know, let me say it this way, those were expensive wars, not just in Americans lives but in terms of the taxpayers’ resources. And when you end them as the president is doing, they reduce our long term deficits and like in the Republican budget proposals, the world should reflect and recognize what that does in savings.

And we propose to use those savings to reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America. We think that makes a lot of sense.

WALLACE: But it was money that wasn’t going to be spent anyway, and –

GEITHNER: If those wars have gone on, they would be spent.

WALLACE: I understand. But you’re not saving — you’re not ending the wars for budget purposes. You’re ending the wars because of a foreign policy decision. The wars weren’t going to be fought. You’re not really saving money.

GEITHNER: Chris, we all agree –

WALLACE: I mean, it’s a budget gimmick, but it’s money never intended to spend.

GEITHNER: No, it’s not a budget gimmick unless you are — when Republicans propose, it’s a budget gimmick?

WALLACE: Sure, absolutely.

GEITHNER: And you should address that to them. But what it does is –

WALLACE: Well — so, I’m addressing it to you.

Why don’t we count the $200 billion we’ll save by not invading Honduras, too?  Hey, we can not invade Canada and save a couple of trillion dollars.  If we really want to cut spending, let’s not invade China!  We can save eleventy-zillion dollars that way.

In other Geithner gimmick news, he insisted that there wouldn’t be a fiscal-cliff deal without tax hikes:

Actually, I think that’s probably true — but Republicans in the House aren’t going to pass tax hikes without substantial spending cuts and entitlement reform either, Mr. Secretary.  Better go back to the drawing board.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sad that this lightweight tax cheat is our sec of treasury. How far we have fallen.

echosyst on December 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM

…Bmore…!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Geithner busted on “war savings”

…yeah!…well he got busted on his taxes too…and look where he’s at!

KOOLAID2 on December 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM

ROFL

300 million citizens to choose from and THIS is what we get.

Now you know why I collect the things I do; the best and brightest this nation can produce are running the show.

Bishop on December 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Geithner is the face of our government in so many way, a shameless utterly corrupt liar. L.I.B (Let it burn) Burn baby Burn…

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

No wonder he couldn’t figure out how to pay his own taxes. The income from the second job he wasn’t going to take after all kept confusing him.

plutorocks on December 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Sure, I’m completely willing to pay a bit more in taxes. Once we dissolve HUD, the SEC, FCC, and FDA, and make Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid solvent.

Yeah, that’ll be a good start. Then we can talk about the minimal tax increases that may actually make sense. Like maybe cutting the Hollywood loopholes. And the Buffet loopholes. Yeah, those’ll do just fine.

Until then? I’m buying a front-row seat and popcorn for the big show as you blowhards in DC go over the cliff.

Let.It.Burn.

nukemhill on December 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

If we really want to cut spending, let’s not invade China! We can save eleventy-zillion dollars that way.

And then we can use the eleventy-zillion dollars saved to “reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America”!

sadarj on December 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

GEITHNER: Man, being king of the treasure is hard, you have to use these little cross’ and lines to put more numbers or take away some. Then there’s this little x thing, and another line with two dots on either side of it! WHAT DOES THAT EVEN DO!? And don’t even get me started on the zeros. I just put them on the end of things now because it looks right.

Gatsu on December 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

And then we can use the eleventy-zillion dollars saved to “reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America”!

sadarj on December 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Still better increase “revenue” though. Just in case… :-/

Gatsu on December 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Timmy Geithner is a tax cheat who belongs in jail.

rbj on December 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

It’s pathetic that they’re still counting those “savings” in these figures they’re throwing out there. Reid and Obama both have been doing it over the last couple years, and aside from Wallace in this interview, I don’t know of any drive-by media member who’s called them on it.

Doughboy on December 3, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Leaving 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014 is not my idea of ending a war or saving money. Besides, there is no saving or deficit-cutting if money is taken from one department and transferred to another. Not to mention that we’ll have to borrow anyway to do it.

If we go over the cliff, I hope Geithner forgets to bring a parachute.

Liam on December 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have some confidence that the speakers for the GOP had the will to stand for something and bring this whole mess to some logical conclusion. If we only acquiesce to the President we give him even more reason to continue his arrogant tyrannical ways.

Pardonme on December 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

and do the ppl who voted for O even know this?

I sit here shaking my head daily.

CoffeeLover on December 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Doesn’t he have the shiftiest look of anyone, ever?

Paul-Cincy on December 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Tim Geithner is Beavis. And he likes fire. Let it burn, he says.

beatcanvas on December 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Why doesn’t anyone EVER ask “How do new taxes create jobs?”

RedManBlueState on December 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Yeah, I think everybody who has a credit card and can’t make their payments ought to have the authority to raise their credit limit themselves. It’s not fair.

If I can’t make my credit card payments it’s the credit card companies fault. Not mine. If I could keep raising my credit limit myself… I’d be able to keep making some kind of payments. Why is this so hard to understand? Yeah.. maxing your card out is for the birds, man. I wannna be done with that! Why even have credit card limits anyway! it’s such a bother.

JellyToast on December 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

War Savings = “soft dollar” savings.

Shut up Mr. Wallace and just ask questions you’re allowed too.

Ban the Media.

PappyD61 on December 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM

So in Geithnerland we would still be budgeting for WWI, WWII, various Mexican conflicts, US Civil War, various Indian conflicts, 1812, the Revolutionary War… because, you know, once they ended the spending continued on to pay for active operations….

Say, Little Timmy, you might want to make sure you gots the latest version of Turbo Tax and run that by some professionals, y’know?

ajacksonian on December 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM

The simple fact that this wormy little puke is running the Treasury Department speaks volumes about the sad state of this poor sick Republic.

rplat on December 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Now you know why I collect the things I do; the best and brightest this nation can produce are running the show.

Bishop on December 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Yup.

Washington Nearsider on December 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Were the wars included in the 2008-2012 budgets ?
Oh, yeah.
Nevermind.

pambi on December 3, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Obama: “If Chris Wallace wants to go after somebody, he should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with him, uh, later. But for him to go after the Treasury Secretary, who has nothing to do with budget policy, and was simply making my presentation because I had to go golf, and besmirch his reputation is outrageous. When they go after the Treasury Secretary, apparently because they think he’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. Now watch this drive.” Obama later added.

forest on December 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Anybody with an ounce of self-preservation is already in the process of disconnecting as far as possible from the lunacy. No way do we have to indulge as far as we do.

Although Wallace reminded me of WWF because he failed to behead his prey while he had the opportunity, it was good to watch even a little bit of smackdown.

platypus on December 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM

but Republicans in the House aren’t going to pass tax hikes without substantial spending cuts and entitlement reform either, Mr. Secretary. Better go back to the drawing board.

Is the rat-eared bastard going to stay in DC until the end of the year to help with this debate or will he still go off on his taxpayer-paid $4M vacation to his adopted homeland?

Happy Nomad on December 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM

My wife asked me about specific line-item spending cuts in Obama’s plan this morning. I still have some coffee in my nose.

forest on December 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Is the rat-eared bastard going to stay in DC until the end of the year to help with this debate or will he still go off on his taxpayer-paid $4M vacation to his adopted homeland?

Happy Nomad on December 3, 2012 at 10:02 AM

To bad islands can’t really tip over, eh… o_O

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

If Obama/Geithner’s fiscal math is to be followed…Obama has cut over $10 trillion from the budget because Obama has not funded a couple major wars he could have, and did not fund a lot of nation building that he could have funded, and did not give away to his friends and cronies all that he wished he could have given away, and did not pay for that 1-million-passenger space ark to send out to Alpha Centuri to save humankind when that imaginary asteroid was supposed to hit earth in January 2013…and Michelle has not taken all those trips to the coolest places and most expensive places in the world with all of her friends…but she might have.

And these are the smartest guys in the world?

Timmy just had to be hired as Treasury Secretary because he was the only guy in the world who understood how to fix the recession and save 200 million American jobs?

Lord, give us strength.

Not one dime in new revenue…taxes…thievery from the pockets of those who work and produce and enable real job creation…not one damn dime…until Obama and Timmy and the Dems sit down and actually cut real spending. Not projected spending. Not spending possibilities down the road a decade or so, but real cuts, right now, to the tune of at least $1.5 trillion…in real dollars. Shut down government agencies, fire government workers, stop stupid and redundant programs…today, right now.

No wonder Geithner could not figure out TurboTax.

He was inputting imaginary numbers made up of whole cloth and tried to get TurboTax to accept it all as real.

When TurboTax could not…Timmy decided to not pay taxes at all…since he couldn’t get the mega-refunds he thought he was due.

And he is in charge of the money in America?

God help us all.

coldwarrior on December 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM

GEITHNER: No, it’s not a budget gimmick unless you are — when Republicans propose, it’s a budget gimmick?

WALLACE: Sure, absolutely.

GEITHNER: And you should address that to them. But what it does is –

WALLACE: Well — so, I’m addressing it to you.

“Wah – those kids are doing it too…” Pathetic!

A great POWERLINE piece with graphs:

Why Are Republicans Losing the Tax Debate?

[excerpt]

So why in the world is the GOP on the defensive in the tax debate? I’d give a simple explanation: the Left is arguing Rawls (justice as fairness), while the GOP is still arguing the Laffer Curve, that is to say, the GOP is arguing utility, i.e., raising taxes on the 1 percent hits job creators, stifles investment, and might even reduce revenues. Likewise, the argument that the Bush tax cuts made the income tax more progressive concedes the liberals’ entire premise about tax policy.

To be sure, this is an expression of the superior economic literacy of Republicans. But justice or fairness always beat utility. Republicans won’t begin to turn the tax debate around until they begin to develop the argument that it isn’t fair to place the burden of paying for the government on just a portion of the population. What exactly is fair about taking half of someone’s income to pay for out of control government? In other words, at some point Republicans need to develop an argument that challenges the idea of tax progressivity itself. That will be the ground of moving to a flat tax through fundamental tax reform.

Drained Brain on December 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Timmy Timmy Turbotax….

I made money doing folks’ taxes for them…

I have never encouraged anyone to pay one dime less than they owed, but shown every legal way to pay what’s due and not a dime more.

Never had an audit go bad from MY end.

Good to know the American people rewarded SCOAMF with a recrowning so a genius who can’t do what i do sets the rules on tax plicy.

Salute

harlekwin15 on December 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Doesn’t he have the shiftiest look of anyone, ever?

Paul-Cincy on December 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I’ve been trying to figure out for four years who he looks like, and last night it finally hit me. Put sunglasses on him, and he’s the spitting image of Dr. Strangelove.

Athanasius on December 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

To bad islands can’t really tip over, eh… o_O

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

No kidding! But I’m serious. Why should the GOP take any talks about coming to an agreement seriously when the rat-eared bastard goes on vacation before a deal is reached? If it happens the GOP needs to start screaming bloody murder. Pointing out that instead of dealing with the situation by leading he sends TurboTax Timmy to speak for the administration.

Happy Nomad on December 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Good to know the American people rewarded SCOAMF with a recrowning so a genius who can’t do what i do sets the rules on tax plicy.

Salute

harlekwin15 on December 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Apparently you have been doing it wrong all this time… who knew…. o_O

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

No kidding! But I’m serious. Why should the GOP take any talks about coming to an agreement seriously when the rat-eared bastard goes on vacation before a deal is reached? If it happens the GOP needs to start screaming bloody murder. Pointing out that instead of dealing with the situation by leading he sends TurboTax Timmy to speak for the administration.

Happy Nomad on December 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Only problem is that I have totally lost faith that the GOP elite are on the side of America.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Geithner’s lying: Both wars were funded under Bush. They just weren’t funded in the normal budget process, but by a separate budget resolution.

The price tag for both wars is a bit north of $1-trillion, and that over a 10-year period. The other fun facts are the incremental costs of the wars. The Department of Defense was going to spend some money on manpower, training, and equipment without the wars. The estimates that I’ve seen put the additional cost of the wars at around $400-billion, again over 10-years.

So, the real cost of the wars averages around $40-billion per year. Geithner & Co. are printing $40-billion per month in this QE3 program of theirs. Five years and two elections later and they still blame Bush.

Sheesh, what a bunch of cowards.

ss396 on December 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Apparently you have been doing it wrong all this time… who knew…. o_O

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

He and Helicopter Ben both are the greatest con men to ever sit in the Fed’s powers.

“Print as much money as we can!” is not exactly earth-shattering genius at safeguarding people’s savings.

harlekwin15 on December 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Sheesh, what a bunch of cowards.

ss396 on December 3, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Oh, they are not cowards, they are quit brazenly brave in the scam they are pulling, the phrase you are looking for is, “what a bunch of lying thieves”.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

but Republicans in the House aren’t going to pass tax hikes without substantial spending cuts and entitlement reform either, Mr. Secretary.

Hope springs eternal.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Why is the Treasury Secretary the lead hack on this?

forest on December 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM

He really needs to go. Turbo Tim does not know what he is doing anymore than the guy in the White House.

Amazingoly on December 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Busted you idgit

cmsinaz on December 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Doesn’t he have the shiftiest look of anyone, ever?

Paul-Cincy on December 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

…he has that “I need to be puched and pummeled look” !!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM

This is how libs think. My sister will buy something that is on sale and put it on her already maxed out credit card, because, look at all the money she is saving! while she makes the minimum monthly payment.

ctmom on December 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM

“Print as much money as we can!” is not exactly earth-shattering genius at safeguarding people’s savings.

harlekwin15 on December 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Borrow $1,000,000,000,000.00 dollars, inflate your currency 1000% then pay back the $1,000,000,000,000.00 in post inflation dollars, but at pre-inflation non adjusted terms. How much are you actually paying back.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Hey. Thought provoking commentary. Good job.

Lately (even before reading http://thewildernessofmirrors.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/l-i-b-let-it-burn-burn-baby-burn/ [note the gratuitous plug]) I had been rethinking L.i.B. in the context of God commands to the Israelis when they were in bondage. Basically, even in a foreign country, He told then to be good citizens, be industrious, and prosper.

Your commentary was good food for thought in the context of working through this. Thanks.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Cut out the EPA, DEA, DOE, IRS, FEMA and twenty or so more and I would be willing to pay more taxes to help get the deficit under control. We keep letting these crooks lie and get away with it, “If the deficit and unfunded liabilities go up, you are still spending to much!” Math really is that simple. This saving money that you never had and never meant to spend but counting it as a reduction would get a Wall Street guy in prison.

rgranger on December 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Why should the GOP take any talks about coming to an agreement seriously when the rat-eared bastard goes on vacation before a deal is reached? If it happens the GOP needs to start screaming bloody murder. Pointing out that instead of dealing with the situation by leading he sends TurboTax Timmy to speak for the administration.

Happy Nomad on December 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Exactly. If that LongLegged MackDaddy goes on vacation before this is settled the first thing the Repubs should say when presented with a microphone is, “The country is in deep financial trouble and the President goes a four million dollar vacation.”

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM

…and he didn’t even MENTION the “savings” from not having to pay the $7500 bribe to 50,000 folks who are NOT BUYING THE VOLT!!!

/sarc>

landlines on December 3, 2012 at 10:32 AM

When will the Dems stop pretending they care about budgets? Just give it up already. Stop wasting our time.

The Dem controlled senate just announced they will not be passing a budget for the 4th(!) year in a row.

This is all a show, targeted at low-information voters.

visions on December 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM

“Print as much money as we can!” is not exactly earth-shattering genius at safeguarding people’s savings.

harlekwin15 on December 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Seriously!

Spend as much as you want. Get to be able to increase your own credit limits anytime you want regardless of whether you can pay your bills or not. This is all reasonable. And never ever attack the people who want to do this as anything other than nice people you want to reach out to and work with.

Don’t ever question their integrity. Never question their hypocrisy. Never ever suggest that taking 4 million dollar vacations in the middle of a fiscal cliff is a smart move or not. That might stir up as hornet’s nest. That might evoke screams of extremism from MSNBC! And we can’t have that! We can’t speak ill of the hangman as he’s leading us all to the gallows! We’ve got to reach out to him and be nice!

JellyToast on December 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Why do I predict that we’ll soon have the GEICO lizard doing our “budget savings” commercials on prime time television. Oh wait GEICO = Government Employees Insurance Company, so yeah it fits.

Wait until my wife comes home and says that she didn’t buy that $150 purse, a new $350 jacket, and a new $1500 necklace. Since she just “saved” $2000, she used that savings to spend $450 on new shoes and we come out $1550 ahead of the game. Sweet.

Brought to you buy the people who believe you can spend your way out of deficit spending…..

Mo_mac on December 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This saving money that you never had and never meant to spend but counting it as a reduction would get a Wall Street guy in prison.

rgranger on December 3, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Can’t expect much more than that from a mentality that calls a reduction in a spending increase a spending cut even when they are spending more.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Tim Geitner didn’t pay his back taxes until he got a job offer from the Democrat President. I wonder how many other liberals and liberals working in government think they are better than those who have to pay taxes?

The Obama government federal workers owe a few billion dollars, in back taxes.

Lets collect those before we raise the debt cieling again. And if they don’t pay, fire them.

Fleuries on December 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Not sure why we are using the “$” in front of these numbers anymore. What does it mean, really.

jake49 on December 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM

My wife asked me about specific line-item spending cuts in Obama’s plan this morning. I still have some coffee in my nose.

forest on December 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Tell her Obama’s plan is like the person at the grocery store who buys cat food because of a sign saying “save $2″. They get home, and tell their spouse that they saved $100 by buying 50 bags. The spouse replies, “but we don’t even HAVE a cat!”.

hawksruleva on December 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Hey, we can not invade Canada and save a couple of trillion dollars.

I’d support short term taxes for a full scale invasion and colonization of Canada.

We could roll tanks on Monday, on Tuesday they’d be saying ‘Eh!’, and it would all be over by Friday.

They have it coming.

CorporatePiggy on December 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Your commentary was good food for thought in the context of working through this. Thanks.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:25 AM

By the way, just in case it didn’t come through in that article, I am not suggesting that we do not let it burn. Just that we should be damned prepared for what letting it burn really means.

I have always found it amusing that the majority of Marxists useful idiots always assume that in a Marxist take-over that they, by virtue of supporting the Marxist take-over would be immune to the consequences of that take-over, despite the historical record of what has in the past happened to those very same Marxist useful idiots. The same can be said of those who appease or facilitate Islamic regimes.

The simple truth is this, if you are dangerous enough to facilitate a tyrannical oppressive regimes rise to power, then you are exactly the kind of person that that new regime needs to eliminate just as quickly as possible in order to prevent you from doing to them, what you just did to the previous regime.

Let it burn is a very dangerous concept that will have very real and concrete repercussion. The exact same kind of repercussions that the Founding Fathers faced when they formed their revolt against King George. If they had failed, King George would have hung them all for treason.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I wonder if Tim has done his taxes for this year yet? The Treasury Secretary probably thinks that no money can be raised by closing loopholes, because don’t most taxpayers just skip paying their taxes?

hawksruleva on December 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Does he have a learning disability?

Tater Salad on December 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Canada’s economy bounced back from the recession nicely. Turns out they have some more conservative fiscal policies than we do.

I think Boehner should come out every day and say “we’ll put whatever plan the President proposes to a vote. And fiscally conservative Republicans will vote ‘present’, so his bill will pass. If Americans think Obama’s plans will save America, we’re eager to watch that happen.”

hawksruleva on December 3, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Just that we should be damned prepared for what letting it burn really means.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Yes. I have wondered if I really mean it when I say, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Sobering times.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Does he have a learning disability?

Tater Salad on December 3, 2012 at 10:41 AM

No, just Honesty, Integrity, Moral, and Ethical disabilities. o_O

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I’m not an accountant so I may be missing something here. I understand you can’t save money for what you didn’t do and weren’t going to do.

What I don’t get is how you can really say you are saving money when you are still borrowing. Real savings doesn’t begin until you plan to spend less so borrowing is not needed.

Bill Clinton would say that depends on the definition of savings.

Democrats would say real savings begins when you have increased revenues beyond what you’d like to spend. Is there such a point?

The government can’t be out of money as long as someone somewhere is still making a profit.

AnotherJones on December 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Just that we should be damned prepared for what letting it burn really means.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Those that fought Marxists in Latin America left behind a lot of widows and orphans.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM

How many poor souls could we feed when we end the war on presidental vacations?

Don L on December 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Democrats would say real savings begins when you have increased revenues beyond what you’d like to spend. Is there such a point?

AnotherJones on December 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Not for the dhimmicRATs.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Imagine how different it would be if we had a Nancy Pelosi on our side? Someone who fought like Harry Reid fights… not a lying cheat or anything. Not talking about that. But someone on our side who fought for us as hard as Harry Reid fights for them!

If the tables were turned.. if Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House and Bush was President and there were these fiscal cliff talks going on… and Bush decided to take a 4 million dollar vacation in the middle of them. Do think she’d be OK with that?

Why do you think Nancy Pelosi would make a big deal about Bush taking a 4 million dollar vacation? Because it would be an effective tool in the political war that politicians wage. Something that people would understand. It would shine the spotlight on the hypocrisy of whomever was doing it.. making it an example of the kinds of attitudes about spending that have brought us to these fiscal cliff talks to begin with…. And in that case.. she would be right for doing so. But we say nothing. That’s why we lose.

JellyToast on December 3, 2012 at 10:46 AM

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Yes. I have wondered if I really mean it when I say, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Sobering times.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Indeed, that question has plagued me many a time as well. It is precisely what led me to write that piece. It is one thing to own a firearm, buy ammo, and spend time at the range practicing to use it.

It is something entirely different to actually be confronted by a police officer and then use that weapon. I am not, to the best of my knowledge, in the habit of intentionally deceiving myself. For a United States Constitution loving law, abiding citizen such as myself, that would be a horribly agonizing and difficult decision to be confronted with. Perhaps the most difficult decision any of us will ever be faced with.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

One thing we need to remember, they are doing this by design. They want the crisis. They want the country to go belly up. It is not in their plan to save the USoA financially.

They want to tear it down.

The GOPe, I’m afraid, wants the same thing, just slower.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Used car salesman…

PatriotRider on December 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Why doesn’t anyone EVER ask “How do new taxes create jobs?”

RedManBlueState on December 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I’ve been asking that question since the beginning of time (well, for several years, anyway).

Still haven’t gotten a credible answer from the left. Which pretty much answers the question.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Those that fought Marxists in Latin America left behind a lot of widows and orphans.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Those folks from the north that fought to free the slaves left behind a few widows too did they not? And then there’s that Nazi blitzkreig and death camps that needed stopping mostly with American lives,oh and the little incursion at Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death marches and hellship prisoner deaths, had a few tears from widows and children too.

Don L on December 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

JellyToast on December 3, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Yes a thousand times.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM

One thing we need to remember, they are doing this by design. They want the crisis. They want the country to go belly up. It is not in their plan to save the USoA financially.

They want to tear it down.

The GOPe, I’m afraid, wants the same thing, just slower.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Gretchen Carlson made a really good point this morning on Fox & Friends. She said that the Democrats probably want us to go over the fiscal cliff, since they are in favor of everything that will happen – higher taxes, no cuts in spending, gutting the military, etc.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM

And as asked by so many American wives: do you have any idea how much I saved us dear at the big sale at the new mall?

Don L on December 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Those that fought Marxists in Latin America left behind a lot of widows and orphans.

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Indeed, as did those in Southeast Asia. One thing that cannot be denied about the true believers in Marxism, they are not afraid or hesitant to shed as much of their opponents blood as it takes to achieve their end game.

America at this moment in time bears a striking and frightening resemblance to Imperial Russia just before the revolution. And we all know how that turned out.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Those folks from the north that fought to free the slaves left behind a few widows too did they not? And then there’s that Nazi blitzkreig and death camps that needed stopping mostly with American lives,oh and the little incursion at Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death marches and hellship prisoner deaths, had a few tears from widows and children too.

Don L on December 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Correct. And when does the time come, at what point, do we decide that we follow in their foot steps. We need wise leaders for us followers.

(BTW, I’m not much into shaking hands and then saying I shook hands with so and so. But one time when I was driving OTR, at a truckstop restaurant I saw a little old man with a campaign hat that had Bataan stitched on it. It was my honor and privilege to shake his hand and say, “Thank you.”)

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Perhaps the most difficult decision any of us will ever be faced with.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Channeling one’s aggression towards the people who create most of our problems (namely, politicians) is perfectly understandable. The problem is that citizens in uniform are under orders to stand between us and the cowardly, spineless politicians.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

When will the Dems stop pretending they care about budgets? Just give it up already. Stop wasting our time.

The Dem controlled senate just announced they will not be passing a budget for the 4th(!) year in a row.

This is all a show, targeted at low-information voters.

visions on December 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Likewise, when will the GOP stop pretending that their insistence of “deep spending cuts” be a “necessary” component of any budget talks? They’re NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. EVER. It’s all part of the same show. They care about as much as the Dems, which is to say they really don’t.

PatriotGal2257 on December 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Best response EVAH! to this nonsense was Paul Ryan’s House floor speech where he said we could save $5 trillion by proposing to paint the moon in yogurt and then decide to not do it

powerpickle on December 3, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Wait until my wife comes home and says that she didn’t buy that $150 purse, a new $350 jacket, and a new $1500 necklace. Since she just “saved” $2000, she used that savings to spend $450 on new shoes and we come out $1550 ahead of the game. Sweet.

Mo_mac on December 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This is what is taught in the “Peg Bundy school of Finance” which provides training to the majority of the fiscal midgets which infest our government.

landlines on December 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Hey, we can not invade Canada and save a couple of trillion dollars.

I’d support short term taxes for a full scale invasion and colonization of Canada.

We could roll tanks on Monday, on Tuesday they’d be saying ‘Eh!’, and it would all be over by Friday.

They have it coming.

CorporatePiggy on December 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM

The Canadians deserve it too, just for taking over practically every decent home improvement show on HGTV.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2012 at 11:04 AM

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Channeling one’s aggression towards the people who create most of our problems (namely, politicians) is perfectly understandable. The problem is that citizens in uniform are under orders to stand between us and the cowardly, spineless politicians.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Yes, exactly. David Galland, writing for Casey Research, did a very disturbing and though provoking article called “The rise of the praetorian class” well worth the read as it touches on this very subject.

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM

We can’t speak ill of the hangman as he’s leading us all to the gallows! We’ve got to reach out to him and be nice!

JellyToast on December 3, 2012 at 10:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dXHzeOdDZg

davidk on December 3, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The Canadians deserve it too, just for taking over practically every decent home improvement show on HGTV.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Hell, they deserve it just for inflicting Justin Beiber on us… o_O

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM

WOULD YOU PLEASE USE HIS OFFICIAL TITLE?!??

TAX CHEAT TIMOTHY GEITHNER

Sugar Land on December 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM

GEITHNER: …if they want to do more on the spending side than the $600 billion we proposed on top of the trillion already enacted, in top of the savings from the wars…

…those were expensive wars, not just in Americans lives but in terms of the taxpayers’ resources. And when you end them as the president is doing, they reduce our long term deficits…

In FY 2007, we were fighting both wars.

The FY 2007 budget was passed in 2006 and was the last budget passed by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President.

The FY 2007 budget featured:
(Receipts $2,568 Billion) – (Outlays $2,729 Billion) = Deficit $161 Billion

FY 2012 estimate: (Receipts $2,469 Billion) – (Outlays $3,796 Billion) = Deficit $1,327 Billion

The FY 2012 estimated deficit was OVER EIGHT TIMES THE SIZE of the FY 2007 deficit.

And the wars are not to blame.

Sure, Receipts (revenues) were down a little less than 4% from FY 2007, but Outlays (spending) was up a whopping 39%, an increase from $2.7 Trillion to $3.8 Trillion in just the last five years, and that increase of over $1 TRILLION in spending is what is causing our massive deficits.

And again, They can’t blame war spending, which was already factored into the FY 2007 budget numbers shown on the White House’s own web site:

Budget numbers directly from the White House Office of Management and Budget

ITguy on December 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Why doesn’t anyone EVER ask “How do new taxes create jobs?”

RedManBlueState on December 3, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I’ve been asking that question since the beginning of time (well, for several years, anyway).

Still haven’t gotten a credible answer from the left. Which pretty much answers the question.

UltimateBob on December 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Allow me:

The Left has an ongoing fantasy about massive “public works” programs where huge amounts of people are hired for (ahem) “shovel ready” “infrastructure” jobs. These jobs would be paid for with tax dollars. Higher taxes would be needed because these fantasies would be enormously expensive. These new workers would then take their new paychecks and start buying stuff, stimulating the economy. There are many, many things wrong with this ideologically-driven scenario, as has been proven time and time again. It defies basic economic principles, uncomfortable truths about waste, fraud & abuse by Big Government, etc.

A great example of this fantasy is the whole Rachel Maddow “Hoover Dam” fixation. Nevermind that the irony that the radical Greens in her own party would never allow the Hoover Dam to be built in this day and age (please see: Keystone XL).

visions on December 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Geithner reminds me of Dr. Strangelove.

Without the genius part.

Dumb a$$ tax cheat thinks we’re all as stupid as Obama voters.

novaculus on December 3, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Geithner reminds me of Dr. Strangelove.

Without the genius part.

Dumb a$$ tax cheat thinks we’re all as stupid as Obama voters.

novaculus on December 3, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Well, tragically, at least 52% of the country currently evidences being as stupid as the Obama voters…

SWalker on December 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM

and do the ppl who voted for O even know this?

I sit here shaking my head daily.

CoffeeLover on December 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

No. They don’t care, either. They are very bust trying to keep their eyes and ears covered while their hands are held out for the free goodies they love so much.

Doesn’t he have the shiftiest look of anyone, ever?

Paul-Cincy on December 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Yep, the perpetual look of a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

However, using Timmy’s logic, think how much we would save if we didn’t have to fund the Government giveaway programs. Say, think how much I could save if I didn’t pay my taxes!

ghostwalker1 on December 3, 2012 at 11:27 AM

bust = busy

lack of coffee here…

ghostwalker1 on December 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Don’t you just love it when a sanctimonious tax cheat lectures people on paying their “fair share”?

The next thing that really chaps my ass is the liberal notion that a tax cut is the same as government spending, as if it’s ALL the government’s money to begin with, and what you get to keep of YOUR OWN MONEY is a government expenditure.

Good sweet gravy, how in the hell did America re-elect this bunch of purposefully deceitful, deliberate despoilers of our Republic?

hillbillyjim on December 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM

We can save eleventy-zillion dollars that way.

Hahahahaha, that was priceless :)

Just think what we’d save if we didn’t launch an attack on “sanctimonious tax cheats”!

scalleywag on December 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how cutting government spending is bad for the economy, but cutting private sector investment and spending by raising taxes is just peachie.

WestTexasBirdDog on December 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

This might seem a strange point but watching Geithner makes me understand why Obama is pushing Rice at State. Obama needs radicals and flunkies at the top posts. If he even had a guy like Kerry who had run for President he couldn’t count on his loyalty to do radical things. Any non-radical President would save their political capital for other fights UNLESS for this President it IS worth the fight as he needs an anti-Isreal, etc person at State for his second term agenda.

Conan on December 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

What’s the difference in victims of a holdup pointing out the rich dude to the robber and encouraging the crook to take his money, and Obama’s Takers saying that they want Obama to raise taxes on the rich?

WestTexasBirdDog on December 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2